Re: [gentoo-dev] Requiring two sets of eyes for all eclass commits

[Petteri Räty]

On 04/26/2010 01:42 AM, Alistair Bush wrote:
>> On 04/24/2010 09:14 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:40:54 +0300
>>>
>>> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote:
>>>> 17:34 < Betelgeuse> robbat2|na: how easy to it to prevent commits to
>>>> CVS if the commit message doesn't match a certain pattern?
>>>> 17:36 <@robbat2|na> go and checkout the CVSROOT and there should be an
>>>> example there
>>>> 17:37 < Betelgeuse> robbat2|na: Ok so doable then. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think about not allowing commits to eclasses without
>>>> mentioning an another developer who has reviewed and approved the diff
>>>> in the commit message? There's enough people on gentoo-dev for urgent
>>>> stuff too.
>>>
>>> no thanks; we already have the policy to require that major changes to
>>> broad impact eclasses have gone through -dev, no need to add more
>>> bureaucracy.
>>
>> But the policy is not tested by the quizzes and we have had cases lately
>> where large diffs have been committed without gentoo-dev review. With
>> peer review it's likely that the reviewer is familiar with what should
>> be sent to gentoo-dev as hesitant/new people won't give their approval
>> that easily.
>
> 1)  Why is it of any relevance whether or not the quizzes test this policy?

I doubt recruits read all of our documentation while answering the
quizzes. This would just enforce behavior.

> 2)  Where is this policy recorded, and why does devmanual.g.o seem to
> (possibly) contradict it? [1]  I'm not sure of the nature of the commits but
> were they non-general?
>

http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/index.html

"Before updating eutils  or a similar widely used eclass, it is best to
email the gentoo-dev list."

>
> [1] "It is not usually necessary to email the gentoo-dev list before making
> changes to a non-general eclass which you maintain. Use common sense here."

Yeah it's not spelled that clearly there.

Regards,
Petteri